[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] Long Trails
- Subject: [at-l] Long Trails
- From: jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)
- Date: Sat Jan 8 09:13:17 2005
At 06:29 AM 1/8/2005 -0500, Mark Hudson wrote:
><<I remember a discussion a long time back, maybe on this list or
>possibly the old Backpacker Chat Room on AOL, concerning what
>constitutes a long distance hike. I remeber that Frank Logue was
>involved in the discussion. And the general agreement was any hike
>that required resupply was considered a long distance hike. Now at
>that time one would not consider doing a resupply in 3 day intervals,
>usually 8 to 10 days made more sense. Would it make sense to define
>a long trail as one that would require resupply? It makes sense to
>me but that would qualify a lot of trails.>>
>
>Good question, with the likelyhood of a lot of different answers. I guess
>that the end result is that what one considers to be a long trail is really
>a state of mind.
>I guess the question for me is how long it takes me to leave my "civilized"
>(read "stressed") state of mind behind. I've been on hikes where that took
>more than a week, and others where it only took a few hours. Once I reach
>that mental release point the trail is long enough, and the farther it goes
>from there the better!
>
>skeeter
I like that definition. I've had a few "long" day hikes myself, one because
I was with a group that was overly concerned with getting to the end of a
planned 20 miles. That trip was was death march long. 8P Another day
(alone) I covered just as much ground but at my own pace. That hike was
stress release long. :D
Attempts to quantify a hike by miles or days smack of the Trailplace debate
over what constitutes a *true* thru-hike. When I was running I remember
reading an article in Runners' World about a marathon where the organizers
and the 'audience' made a point of cheering the last finisher as loudly as
the first, their point being that the race was more difficult for those who
needed longer so anyone who finished was a winner in that they rose to the
challenge. Hiking is also an individual thing. The notion that there should
be a fixed standard ignores that fact.
I posted a story last summer about a guy who stayed 4 days at the lean-to I
maintain. He was told he needed open heart surgery and decided he wanted to
take a long hike instead. He hiked the 4 miles to the lean-to, camped 4
days and hiked back out. It took him all day to hike out the 4 miles when
he came out. For him it was a very long hike. Perhaps those who wish to
quantify their hikes should stick to terms that are meant to quantify. I.E.
'I took a 3 week hike' rather than 'I took a long hike'. "Long" is an
inherently relative term. I think we should leave it that way.